Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

, Case 2:85-cv-01078-PCD Document 230 Filed O4/02/2004 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
v. )
) CIVIL NO. H-85-1078 (PCD)
43.47 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, )
SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF )
LITCHFIELD, TOWN OF KENT, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. ) April 2, 2004
AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
OF SCHAGHTICOKE TRIBAL NATION
The Defendant, Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, by and through its attomeys,
McCarter & English, LLP, for its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, states:
l. Paragraph l of the Complaint is admitted.
2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is denied as against this defendant.
3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is admitted.
4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is admitted.
5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is denied.
6. As to Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation states that it
alone has a legitimate interest in the subject property, denies that any other person or entity has a
legitimate interest in the property, but admits that the persons and entities listed may claim such
an interest.
7. As to Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation states that it
alone has a legitimate interest in the subject property, denies that local and state taxing
authorities have a legitimate interest in the property, but admits that those authorities may claim
such an interest. A

, Case 2:85-cv-01078-PCD Document 230 Filed O4/O2/2004 Page 2 of 4
8. As to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation states that it
alone has a legitimate interest in the subject property, denies that there are "Unl who have a legitimate interest in the property, but is without sufficient information or knowledge
to form a belief as to whether there are "Unknown Owners” who may claim such an interest.
9. Defendant is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the avennents in Paragraph 9 and leaves the plaintiff to its proof
FIRST AFFIRIVIATIVE DEFENSE
10. The two parcels of land totaling 126.99 acres that are referenced in Paragraph 4 of
the Amended Complaint is land that purportedly was taken from the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation
in violation of the Indian Nonintercourse Act. This taking was illegal and void. Any new
attempt at divestiture of title to the 126.99 acres of land would be in violation of the Indian
Nonintercourse Act and, therefore, void. Thus, title to 126.99 acres of land remains vested in
defendant Schaghticoke Tribal Nation and is Indian land.
11. All other co-defendants na1ned in the Amended Complaint are without proper title
to any portion of the 126.99 acres of land and could not enter into a lawful agreement with
plaintiff for just compensation in any alleged conveyance of any portion of the 126.99 acres of
land.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. The two parcels of land totaling 126.99 acres that are referenced in Paragraph 4 of
the Amended Complaint is land that purportedly was taken from the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation
in violation of the Indian Nonintercourse Act. This taking was illegal and void. Any new p
attempt at divestiture of title to the 126.99 acres of land would be in violation of the Indian
Nonintercourse Act and, therefore, void. Thus, title to 126.99 acres of land remains vested in
defendant Schaghticoke Tribal Nation and is Indian land. I
-2- i

, Case 2:85-cv-01078-PCD Document 230 Filed 04/02/2004 Page 3 of 4
13. Plaintiff is without proper authority to condemn Indian lands unless specifically
authorized by the Congress of the United States.
THE PLAINTIFF,
SCHAGHTICOKE TRIBAL NATION
BY MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLC
ITS ATT YS _
By { A \»
Eric a 'Wiechmann (CT 04331)
Peter W. Hull (CT 17230)
CityP1ace I
Hartford, CT 06103
(860) 275-6700
I and
Thomas Van Lenten, Esq. (CT 10199)
Pinney, Payne, Van Lenten,
Burrell, Wolfe & Dillman, P.C.
Lee Fann Corporate Park
83 Wooster Heights
Danbury, CT 06813-3499
(203) 830-6335
Of Counsel:
Judith A. Shapiro, Esq.
6856 Eastern Avenue NW
Suite 206
Washington, DC 20012 A
and
Jerry C. Straus, Esq.
Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP
2120 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
-3-

,5 Case 2:85-cv-01078-PCD Document 230 Filed 04/02/2004 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Schaglnticoke Tribal Nation’s Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Order has been mailed, postage prepaid this gday of April, 2004 to:
Jolm B. Hughes, Esq. Giovanna Tiberii Weller, Esq.
Chief of Civil Division Carmody & Torrance
United States Attorneys Office 50 Leavenworth Street
157 Church Street, Floor 23 P.O. Box 1 110
New Haven, CT 06510 Waterbury, CT 06721-1 110
Thomas Van Lenten, Esq. Robert A. Slavitt, Esq.
Pimiey, Payne, Van Lenten, Slavitt, Connery, & Vardamis
Burrell, Wolfe & Dillman, P.C. 618 West Avenue
Lee Farm Corporate Park Norwalk, CT 06850
83 Wooster Heights
Danbury, CT 06813-3499 James R. Fogarty, Esq.
Fogarty Cohen Selby & Nemiroff
Judith A. Shapiro, Esq. 88 Field Point Road ,P.O. Box 2508
6856 Eastem Avenue NW, Suite 206 Greenwich, CT 06836-2508
Washington, DC 20012
Susan Quinn Cobb, Esq.
David J. Elliot, Esq. Asst. Attomey General
Day, Berry & Howard 55 Elm Street
CityPlace I Hartford, CT 06141
Hartford, CT 06103-3499
Thomas A. Gugliotti, Esq.
Loretta Bonos Updike, Kelly & Spellacy
594 Bendview Drive One State Street
Charleston, WV 25314 Hartford, CT 06123
Jeffrey B. Sienkiewicz, Esq. Renita Ford, Esq.
Sienkiewicz & McKenna, PC General Litigation Section
9 South Main Street, P.O. Box 786 Environmental/Natural Resources Division
New Milford, CT 06776-0786 United States Department of Justice
Post Office Box 663
Michael]. Burns, Esq. Washington, DC 20004-0663
Law Offices of Attorney Michael J. Burns
57 Pratt Street Scott Keep, Esq. .
Hartford, CT 06103 Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of the Interior
Jerry C. Straus, Esq. 1849 C Street, NW
Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP Mailstop 6 1
2120 L Street, NW Washin on, . . 20240 "
Washington, DC 20037 ` 1
% . ..,. 1
Eric ec ann (CT 04331)
HARTFORD: 611778.01 A
-4- .